User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/8

I wish you'd come back. You were a great editor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to formally apologize for my behavior, having thought about it. I am somewhat surprised that my drunken wikistressed comments have deserved me an indefinite block from a project I was quitting anyway. Additionally, I am under indictment in and ArbCom case and would like an opportunity to defend myself.

Decline reason:

Thanks for apologizing. Given that you've decided to leave Wikipedia, I wish you well in the future. However, I'm not going to unblock, because you can contact ArbCom via email if necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't use email. Never have, never will. I fail to see what I have done to deserve an indefinite block.

Decline reason:

That.  Sandstein  07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What I did was restore the consensus wording of one of our oldest policies, WP:EP, to the language it had for much longer than the six years I've been editing here. I admit, the idea of having to be drawn into yet another policy edit war didn't make me at all happy, and I realized in a moment of clarity that the project is seriously broken as there is no effective means of maintaining the project's ideals. WP:5P is apparently sacrosanct, but that's mere ritual when the underlying policies which effect it have no true relationship to it. Trying to keep them that way wasn't always such a lonesome and thankless task; but in every example of policy disputes for about two years now, there's simply months of bickering followed by, at best, the ArbCom taking six months to ponder the situation deeply and collectively shrug. I should not have directed my frustration at one random edit warrior, obviously, and like I said above, I would like to formally apologize for to him for that (I guess, that is, should he ever see this). However, my good name is now being dragged through the mud in an Arbitration case I'm not even a party to that I'm aware of, and I would have liked an opportunity to defend myself; but, OK sirs, whatever. I occasionally hold some slim hope that in the coming years or decades some clever Wikipedian will be able to stop the shifting sands of fickle policy, that are slowly but inevitably sinking the Five Pillars into the wasteland. But this silliness here... that I've been WP:BANned from the project for quitting, makes me have my doubts. I don't really know if there is anyone left who cares. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Kendrick being unblocked? The blocking admin stated that he would be "unblock[ed] with conditions" if he returned. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If they let you come back

WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

AfD nomination of Scroogle

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scroogle. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

{{unblock|1=OK, I'm tired/ennui-ed of IP editing. Hopefully, the un-WP:NPA edit summary which I was blocked for, which wasn't even noticed by its intended recipient, is now far enough in the distant past that some kind admin will be willing to unblock me, so I can come out from my semi-retirement and formally resume my editorial duties, among which could include defending the above sectioned article against AFD. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}

Do we infer from your unblock request that you have been editing as an IP while blocked? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He edited to (among other things) apologize to me for the edit summary that got him blocked, I don't see that as a problem myself. The IP that was used has also made other constructive edits and has not edit-warred. I'd be happy to forgive and forget here, especially since this account is under restrictions to avoid the style guideline conflict that was the source of their most problematic behavior. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm OK with unblocking. I'll refer Black Kite to this page and we'll go from there. m.o.p 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If Tim's OK with it, then I am too. Obviously any recurrence of the behaviour that led to the block will mean (etc, etc.). Black Kite 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking. Again, if you cross the NPA line or violate policy again, I'm sure that admins won't be as forgiving. Cheers, m.o.p 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you returning. I hope all goes well for you from here, and if you want to talk, I'm always willing to listen. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

+1 Welcome back. Enigma^msg 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you need any more help or advice my talkpage is always open. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kendrick, welcome back to Wikipedia! --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to be careful in calling this vandalism. Clearly it is a good faith edit. Kevin (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on Wikipedia Watch

Excuse me, but this is completely uncalled for. My revert was absolutely not vandalism, and it is highly insulting to be labeled as such. I request that you retract your edit immediately, as not only was it not vandalism, but the paragraph is decidedly not relevant to the article. GlassCobra 05:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I just came over here to say the same. You reverted a good-faith edit, complete with commentary and labeled it 'vandalism'. Right now, I see four editors (including me) disagreeing with your revert. You know the drill - discuss this on the talk page first, and don't describe edits you don't agree with as 'vandalism'. C'mon - Allie ^❤ 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Please do not call refer to content disagreements as vandalism. Also please do not repeatedly revert other users edits, you can seek consensus on the talk page if you like. ^Chillum 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know vandalism when I see it, and am happy to call it such. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to take action; I might appear biased. But it looks as if you have reverted three times here; one more will bring you into conflict with wiki policy. The edits you have reverted were not, in my opinion, vandalism, which seems to be the general view expressed here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7, it is clear that you "know" vandalism even when you see something that is not. Please read through What is not vandalism before accusing another valued editor of vandalism, or simple take the advice of the several people who have come here to explain it to you. Continuing to accuse people of vandalism over what is merely a content disagreement can be seen as disruptive. ^Chillum 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote the Bard, I know not seems. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for continued use of the phrase "rvv" when reverting good faith edits even after the discussion above. To appeal this block, please add {{unblock|your reason here}}. NW (Talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism, that being the removal of well sourced information pertinent to an article, which is forbidden per WP:PRESERVE. The removal of information was furthermore being carried out by editors supporting the article's ongoing AFD, which is, sadly, particularly nefarious vandal behavior

Decline reason:

Look at the comments directly above. Is it not apparent that everyone but you are in agreement that the edits you are reverting are not vandalism. You are engaged in a edit war, so be happy you were only blocked for 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry, but but per WP:SPADE, I'll be back reverting obvious vandalism again after my block. The real vandals are what seem like good faith editors but who are really trying to undermine the basic nature of the project, by, in this case, removing perfectly good refs from an article in AFD, and not merely those who insert pictures of penises, I'm sorry to tell you. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined, obviously. Locking the page for the duration of the block. I strongly urge you to desist, or the block will be extended. PeterSymonds (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

IP editing

First of all, let me recognise that you are curently unblocked, and state that I have no problem about that. I asked you if you were editing as an IP while blocked, a question, from your question on my talk-page, you appear not to understand the relevance of. Indeed, you call it an odd question, which it is not. I will explain. When you are blocked, as you were, it is you yourself who are blocked. Not just your username, not just a specified IP, but you. yourself. The person. And editing as an IP while blocked is block evasion, which is not acceptable. I understand from another admin that the IP edits which you made were essentially contributory. They were still, by definition, potentially against wikipedia policy and the unblocking admin has been generous. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, it is not "cloak and dagger stuff" as you put it; it is an exact description of current wikipedia policy. And you can have as much time for it or as little, as you choose, but in the event of your being blocked again - which I hope will not occur - it is a policy which will be enforced. I am not playing about here, I am trying to persuade you to take note of a serious warning. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I note your claim to have helped in formulating policies here; I would be interested to know to which ones your refer. Clearly you played no part in formulating the policy on block evasion, which is what you are doing if you edit as an IP during a block imposed for vandalism, as in your recent case. The situation is a little different in the case of a username block, which has not applied to you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that

When you have recently been blocked for careless reverting, reverting an admin's close of a deletion discussion that you are a heavily invested participant in is not a very good idea. Please don't do it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Google Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Google Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

I have removed your comment from the Google Watch Afd as a gross violation of our policy on living people. If you have any such information, you need to support it with a solid source. Hearsay about living people is not admissible on wikipedia.[1]. And this is me assuming good faith that you do indeed have a source - on reflection, and looking at your contributions to other Brandt-related articles, it is difficult not to think this is deliberate harassment of a living person. You realise if what you've said there is not true, or if you don't have a genuine belief that it is true, then it is most certainly libellous. --Scott Mac (Doc) 11:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7: You've been around long enough to know not to do stuff like that, as your block log shows. Blocked for a month. ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference, there is further discussion of this at User_talk:Lar#User:Kendrick. Note: The block notice and this cross reference should not be removed while the user is blocked. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How ridiculous, blocked for a month for recounting some gossip I heard from my high school friends. I fully expected this news to be in the Express-News this morning. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:32 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

If you don't know why your edit was unacceptable then you can't be trusted to edit here but I suspect that you knew exactly how outrageous your action was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I get this reviewed by someone who isn't an involved admin, please? I haven't violated any rules. I won't sit by and be railroaded by the usual bunch of Daniel Brandt haters. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm uninvolved, and that was absolutely unacceptable. You should know better. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Excuse me, why am I "involved"? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If I had to guess, I would guess that perhaps the claim is based on you posting User_talk:Kendrick7#Please don't do that... however I think most would disagree that makes you involved... I am, since I'm the blocking admin, but you are not. Kendrick7: As I said to Mackan79, if there were reason to believe that you understand what you've done wrong here, and that you undertake not to do it again, your block could be shortened. So far I've seen no sign of that, though. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of El caballo del malo

I have nominated El caballo del malo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El caballo del malo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do some research before reverting

Please do not undo the blanking of an AfD without doing any research first. The blanking was requested by an administrator on the English Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 04:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Watch

Your obsession with the owner of Google Watch is reaching an unacceptable level; you've already been blocked for a month for posting false information about his death (and misconstruing the reason you were blocked as being "for daring to even give question to these deletions"), and you're continuing to engage in policy wonkery over the courtesy blanking of the AfD. Your contributions to the rest of this project are undoubtedly appreciated, but your actions regarding this subject are over the top. Please recuse yourself from the topic of Google/Wikipedia Watch and its owners from this point forward; you've already been informed of the serious gravity of your actions many times, and any more harping on this subject will lead to your indefinite block being reinstated. Fran Rogers (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, well, we'll see. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, just a friendly note that Fran Rogers is a long established editor whose previous account was discarded for various reasons - many people know who they are, but respect their choices - and not the newbie you obviously think they are. This is academic as regards your less than stellar interaction skills, but I felt you should be aware of the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, Captain Obvious. If he's willing to pretend to be a new comer, I was certainly happy to go along with the ruse. So, that's all the more reason he should know better than to come around trolling on my talk page and making idle threats, right? I don't regard WP:NPA as merely an essay, but I'm perfectly willing to let this incident slide. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr, he's a she, Captain Pronoun ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 05:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well ...

It's not often we concur on policy matters like this! - Alison ^❤ 05:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• It should probably be pointed out that some have been done as a result of requests to Oversight, where suppression wasn't mandated but blanking was nonetheless seen as being necessary for matters of privacy. It's not strictly correct, therefore, to say 'ArbCom only' or 'community consensus' - Alison ^❤ 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks

On the contrary, moving the bulk of that section to a separate article was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I saw you started Guantanamo Bay homicide accusations -- another good idea.

One minor point I will mention -- three of four years ago someone made a bold series of edits, and changed "Guantanamo" to "Guantánamo" everywhere it occurred. This ruffled quite a few feathers. A compromise was reached. We decided to stick to "Guantanamo" for names in English, and to use "Guantánamo" for names in Spanish. So, the Cuban city and province are "Guantánamo".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kendrick7! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,096 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Michael Ben-Yair - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kendrick7. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Murray Hill Incorporated

The article Murray Hill Incorporated has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability requirements. At this point is a probable violation of WP:SOAP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Well... now that you mention it... :>) (see my user talk page). Blueboar (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Erasmus

I'm not going to revert you, but "fix circular link" isn't the most honest description for reverting a redirect. Also, note this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus (Dune). Fences&Windows 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh

Who indeed. :) Gigs (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As we've had to revert your "who" edit three times now, I suggest that you may want to join the conversation on the appropriate talk pages instead (as per WP:POINT mentioned earlier). It could be more productive than merely adding an unnecessary tag to pages that are currently being discussed. SpikeJones (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Just so I'm sure that I understand your comment left on my talk page - you're accusing me of vandalism?SpikeJones (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)